Was It Personal?

[mariab]

Barnett as a strong suspect

Originally Posted by Monty:
Different MO, killed indoors, significantly younger victim, uterus not removed from scene, I'd say arguements against Kelly are far from weak.
Killed indoors and removal of the heart instead of the uterus totally fit with Barnett as the killer, both as an individual murder or as the Ripper. Both Barnett's profile and physical description (by the witnesses at the night of the “double event“) also fit. If you'd guys remember, many serial killers have been questioned by the police and let go without suspicion, until they were apprehended years later. (Ridgeway as the Green River Killer, Bernardo for the Scarborough attacks, anyone?)

[Rubyretro]

Reading all the replies to this interesting thread, I am struck by the fact that people argue either/or when discussing the circumstances of MJK's murder, and whether her killer had a personal motive for mutilating her as he did -or she was the culmination of a series of JtR murders.

Personally, I do think that Mary's death was 'different' to the others -and her killer had a grudge against her in particular -and yet I still agree with Dan Norder that she was killed by the
same hand as the other canonical victims. So why can't JtR have tried to obliterate her so comprehensively both because he had more time, warmth, and privacy, also because he was attracted to her she had rejected him in the past and also because he hated prostitutes ?
All at the same time.

I don't think that Barnett did it -but neither do I think that it's a coincidence that he had moved out a week earlier. If Jack was a local man who drunk in the same pubs hung about prostiitutes in a seemingly innocent way, and was an acquaintance of Mary's, then he
might well have known that she was alone and soliciting again, and Barnett was no longer there to protect her.

As to whether serial killers always have a previous criminal record, well there always has to be a 'first' victim -yet I don't this sort of murderer wouldn't have shown plenty
of aberrant behaviour in the past. Maybe he had started by mutilating animals ? (which wouldn't have got him a criminal record). He may have been in the army
(the way JtR could immobilise his victims silently and fast, could point to this) ? Men in the army would have served at least half their time in the colonies, and I see that
when reading about Burma (for instance), uprisings in villages were 'brutally supressed' -so an army man may have been part of a scenario of murder and mutilation of women (coupled with adrenalin, danger, and sexual behaviour), and all legally.

[Ashkenaz]

Both Kelly and Chapman had their abdominal areas removed in 3 "panels". As Sam Flynn points out, both murders had visibility, so when he could see, he removed in panels.

The killer began cutting Eddowes right thigh, buttock and right labia in a similar method to the way Kelly`s thigh, buttock and external organs were removed.

Hi Jon
This is fascinating. It strongly suggests that the same man killed both victims. Can I ask where you read this?

[C W Davies]

Could anyone direct me to more information on Flemming please?

many Thanks and Merry Christmas

[lynn cates]

Fleming

Hello CW. Welcome to the boards.

You might try below.

Cheers.
LC

http://forum.casebook.org/forumdisplay.php?f=108

[ChainzCooper]

I don't think Joseph Barnett is the Ripper because hes not who George Hutchinson saw with Mary Kelly
Jordan

[DVV]

Considering she was the last victim, the only one murdered indoors and the only victim in her twenties (while the ripper was under 30 according to Lawende), yes, it sure can be personal - to some extent.

[DVV]

It's past midnight ?

Then I tell you this murder is obviously and undoubtedly personal. If not, why indoors ?

And once you'll have answered this (opportunity, scare in the area, patrols, blablabla, etc), answer that : why only one murder indoors ?

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

why only one murder indoors ?[/QUOTE

Because the others that he found on the street lived in lodging houses. If he did meet any other prostitutes that had their rooms, chances were that they lived with other people, and maybe their rooms were much more difficult to get into.

[Wade Aznable]

I absolutely agree with Ruby.
I tend to think that Jack did choose his victims only to a certain extent, and that he did not choose the places at all (as I see it, he was solicited, then taken to a secluded place for business by the victims themselves, and if he thought "this will do"... then he did. We can not know how many times Jack left his dwellings for action, but decided not to proceed for a variety of reasons). Simply put, 4 out of the C5 (if we believe to the C5, but that's another whole topic) didn't have private lodgings to take customers to; MJK, instead, did.

My tuppence!
W

EDIT: back on topic, I sympathize with Joe Barnett, and for extension with all Casebookers who do not see him as guilty of anything (THE JOES ARE NOT THE MEN THAT WILL BE BLAMED FOR NOTHING, LOL).

[Heinrich]

Joe did in Mary Kelly alright and it was most personal as nothing else can account for the outrageous post mortem mutilation. All they ever argued about was her infidelity to him so he put paid to her independence once she kicked him out of her home.

[Rubyretro]

Joe did in Mary Kelly alright and it was most persona

You cannot possibly state that as fact. There is nothing that points to Joe Barnett as the killer of Mary Kelly, nor of any of the other victims...and everything does point to the C5 & Tabram as having been killed by the same hand.

nothing else can account for the outrageous post mortem
mutilation.

Well how about the fact that it was the only time that the killer got enough time and privacy to do those mutilations ? And he might have done the torsos too, which were pretty outrageous.

All they ever argued about was her infidelity to him so he put paid to her independence

How an earth would you know ? I thought that he objected to her having her prostitute mates kip in their bedroom for one thing. He might quite easily have objected to her drinking all day and then becoming aggressive towards him, too. Since they were two adults living cooped up in one tiny space, with added financial worries, I wouldn't have thought that they even needed much reason to row. Infact it would have been a miracle if they HADN'T argued.

once she kicked him out of her home.

Where does it say that she kicked him out ? Maybe he chose to leave because the situation became intolerable ? I think that it was probably by mutual agreement, since they appear to have stayed friendly.

[Heinrich]

... There is nothing that points to Joe Barnett as the killer of Mary Kelly

On the contrary, Rubyretro, as I demonstrated on another thread, everything about Mary Kelly's murder implicates Joseph Barnett.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2983&page=20

nor of any of the other victims...and everything does point to the C5 & Tabram as having been killed by the same hand.

The murder of Mary Kelly is exceptional in several respects. There is no compelling reason to believe all so-called canonical victims were killed by the same person.

Well how about the fact that it was the only time that the killer got enough time and privacy to do those mutilations ? And he might have done the torsos too, which were pretty outrageous.

But he didn't. Let's stick to the facts.

How an earth would you know ?

Joseph Barnett admitted as much at the inquest.

Where does it say that she kicked him out ? Maybe he chose to leave because the situation became intolerable ? I think that it was probably by mutual agreement, since they appear to have stayed friendly.

Joseph Barnett admitted to leaving Mary Kelly's home after he failed to control her lifestyle. Mary gave him his answer and since he was freeloading and refusing to give her even the rent money, he got his running orders less than a fortnight before he took jealous revenge. You have no reason to believe, other that Joseph Barnett's account, that they remained friendly for the last ten days of her life. It is more likely that he stalked her and, getting nowhere, decided to finish her off.

[Rubyretro]

On the contrary, Rubyretro, as I demonstrated on another thread, everything about Mary Kelly's murder implicates Joseph Barnett.

You failed to demonstrate it (we're not starting all this again, surely ?).

There is no compelling reason to believe all so-called canonical victims were killed by the same person.

I certainly don't agree with you.

But he didn't. Let's stick to the facts.

He might have. I don't know, nor do you

Joseph Barnett admitted to leaving Mary Kelly's home after he failed to control her lifestyle. Mary gave him his answer and since he was freeloading and refusing to give her even the rent money, he got his running orders less than a fortnight before he took jealous revenge.

" freeloading" ? He was certainly paying the rent whilst he was in work. "Jealous revenge" ? That's your own fantasy .

You have no reason to believe, other that Joseph Barnett's account, that they remained friendly for the last ten days of her life. It is more likely that he stalked her and, getting nowhere, decided to finish her off

.

It's very much likelier that when a couple split up they remain friendly, rather than one of them getting stalked and 'finished off' !

[Rubyretro]

I can't delete this duplicate post !